MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913426598 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2009v34n2a2236

How to Do Things with Brands: Uses of National Identity

2009· article· en· W1913426598 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melissa Aronczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobalization and Cultural Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)AdvertisingNational identitySociologyBusinessArtAestheticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Just when the hegemony of the national form seemed well and truly on the wane, its claims to authority and legitimacy compromised by all manner of networks, “scapes” (Appadurai, 1997), and flows, a series of contemporary events has reignited the national discourse. Current crises of value—economic, political, cultural, and moral—have raised the possibility that the protections and provisions offered by the nation-state may be powerful antidotes to the anxieties of global disjunctures. Amid calls to regulate and rebuild the architecture of global integration, the potential of the national imaginary has come once again to the fore. As national leaders try to re-assert their jurisdictional boundaries, they have drawn heavily on their countries’ cultural identities to promote their constituencies as exemplars of both domestic distinction and international fitness.1 Along with declining possibilities for investment in tangible sources of national wealth, a country’s intangible wealth—its “good reputation”—is increasingly evoked as a means to gain the most prominent seat at the appropriately high-stakes table. The problem is that there are many tables to sit at; and it is not always clear how to construe” this reputation in a way that is equally appealing to all possible players. National governments have been convinced of the need to harness, measure, and market this valuable resource, and they have turned to the experts in “reputational value” to help them do so. These experts are nation-branding consultants,2 and their self-styled raison d’etre is to create and communicate a particular version of national identity that will make the nation matter to a wide range of audiences. With their quasi-academic journals and textbooks,3 proprietary indices and rankings of metrological effectiveness, and an acute awareness of the power of the press release, nation branders purport to offer national leaders the “robust” identity they require to retain both their own and their jurisdiction’s relevance in the context of global transformation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.055
Scholarly communication0.0260.034
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicGlobalization and Cultural IdentityFrench-language works237,207